Really? Because reading your post, it seems you’re unaware how to even spell Buddha consistently.
Nothing about your post indicates any awareness of this. You certainly didn’t point out that the cartoon was misattributing Buddha to Budai.
I think it’s obvious some rapid googling of “Budai” just happened.
I doubt it’s immune (I could see your typical caricaturist sticking some buck teeth in there, for instance. They think that kind of shit is high-larious), but since this cartoon is just a straight-up copy of standard Budai representation , not a caricature, it hardly matters. Budai is really hard to caricature otherwise, anyway, since he already has exaggerated features.
Quoting something is not comparing yourself to the quoted person. If I make an “arrow in the knee” reference, I’m not pretending to be a lowly watchman.
Do you not get how cultural references work, or something? That could explain a lot.
P.S. Have you figured out why I LOLed at your Jewish tenants, yet?
Is it because in the Bible jews break them and are punished over and over again, like when they build their golden calf and then get swallowed by the earth?
Well, I don’t find pride sinful, and I doubt you or anyone else has an immortal soul. It does make you insufferable, though, and clearly since you’re obsessing over a typo you’re not interested in actual discussion here. So for realsies this time, I’m out.
Focuses on the throwaway sideline issue, doesn’t address the substantive part of the reply about what constitutes caricature. Claims against all evidence that opponent isn’t interested in actual discussion. Flounces.
Are you sure Great Debates is the forum for you, mate?
Dibble, you’re the kid left kicking the ball against the wall by himself because his mates have lost patience. You’ve clearly got your own idea of what the rules are and are happy to play by them but there’s nothing productive here for anyone else. Have fun.
Merely talking about other people in a different country who displayed the cartoons in a classroom for the purpose of discussing free expression is apparently also very racist and deserving of up-punching:
Seems that once we allow for “the state should prosecute blasphemy in order to pre-empt the totally justified and reasonable response of vigilantes murdering people for it” the degrees removed from the actual violation of the Islamic religious law that you need to make illegal just start multiplying. Almost as if negotiating with terrorists is a pointless exercise in compromising with people who will never be satisfied.
If you don’t understand the context that answers your question, you can ask for clarification instead of deleting it as if it weren’t there.
But I will try to clarify anyway. Carefully.
Your position here is to advocate state suppression of speech that is specifically intended to be “dickish” to groups of people. Why? Because history. You worry where it might lead.
Yes? This is fair summary?
Of course, never in history have the cartoons of a satirical left-wing magazine in an open democracy led to Auschwitz. Not once. But no matter. Ideologues living in a racialist totalitarian state once drew silly pictures which sincerely and explicitly argued racial inferiority. Close enough for you! You urge state power to suppress the silly French cartoons. Because history. Other racists, driven by explicit ideology of racial supremacy rather than a desire to draw silly nonsense, did something unfathomably evil. You lump them all together, with the judgment that the difference between them is insufficient. They must all go.
Which is to say: You construe the problem broadly, rather than narrowly. All of it should be suppressed by state power. You don’t draw the line on explicit advocacy of racial supremacy within a totalitarian state. Even casually racist cartoonists should be suppressed from expression of their images. Because history. Because you worry where it might lead in a different context.
Yes? This is fair summary?
I think this is accurate, but I’ll stop there for you to confirm (or deny) the fairness of this summary, in case I’ve missed some subtlety or nuance that you feel is well worth emphasizing.
No, I worry that it’s clear symptom of where society is heading. I may have phrased it differently at times, especially at the start of this conversation, but I don’t think the cartoons literally cause anything themselves.
Very specific constraints you’ve got there. Probably because you know there were historically plenty of shitty left-wing cartoons, many in places that hosted genocide, but none where the cartoons led to the genocide (even though, as I say, that’s not actually my claim), or none where they were in a dedicated magazine for satire.
Of course, I’m defining it broadly. Because systemic racism and white supremacy combined are a broad problem.
And just so we’re clear, I’m not saying that the result of banning racist cartoons is somehow a better society. I’m saying being a society that is willing to ban racist cartoons is an indicator of being better.
Better than who? It would be trivially easy to name societies that are eager to ban those very same cartoons you complain about and many others besides I doubt you’d consider that an indicator of their superiority.
You’ve already admitted that any cartoon or depiction of a non-white figure is racist, therefore the banning of all cartoons of non-white figures would be an indictor of a better society. And this is where “racist” is some nebulous concept that, no doubt, you consider yourself (or someone like you) an infallible interpreter of both form and intent
I think we all understand and support the impulse to call out racism where we see it, you surely must understand why some of us want that to be done whilst still allowing the freedom of expression from which it may arise.
Because too many (even if a small %) of them murder people in broad daylight. If there were no islamicist murders, nobody would care about Muhammad cartoons.
Just to be clear, they are offensive and I think it’s be better to mimize the number of offensive things that are published, but having the government decide that “dickish” stuff is illegal is the beginning of totalitarianism.
Do you want Trumo deciding that?
A claim without the least amount of evidence to support it.
Then France is already a fledgling totalitarian state, since they’ve already decided some things (face coverings, Holocaust denial) are dickish enough to ban.
Western society is not opposed to banning dickish things. It’s just selective in the things it deems dickish enough.
I could be wrong here, and you could clarify it by saying something along the lines of “some caricatures of non-white subjects are not racist in intent or design and are valid forms of speech”.
Which is an obvious and non-controversial statement to me and I’d rather have society allow that (and run the risk of some people going too far) than starting with your principle of inherent racism in all non-white criticism or depicitions.
But I don’t think you can even allow yourself to say that as it would force you to accept people saying things you don’t personally like…well, join the club.